Charlie, the Media and the Freedom of Speech
Where do we draw the
line?
By
Larry and June Acheson
01/11/2015
Updated 05/24/2024
he
current events dominating world news are focused on the horrific
tragedy in France where terrorists stormed the
office of a weekly newspaper called Charlie Hebdo, brutally
executing its editor and eleven others, including staff members
and two police officers. Eleven others were wounded, some
seriously. The Islamic terrorists who perpetrated this
atrocity did so as an act of revenge for their prophet Muhammad,
whose image had been spoofed and mocked repeatedly by the
newspaper. In a worldwide show of support for the
newspaper's right to satirize and mock individuals of their
choice in the name of "Freedom of Speech," world leaders joined
French citizens and defiantly displayed signs of solidarity that
read, "JE SUIS CHARLIE," which is translated "I AM CHARLIE."
Our hearts grieve for the loss of life and the sorrow felt by
those left to mourn their loved ones. Whenever a life of another
is taken, one of the questions that is often asked (and it needs
to be asked) is, "Why?"
While I do not pretend to have all the answers, I am
nevertheless persuaded that I have some
of the answers and at the risk of coming across as arrogant, I
am persuaded that if everyone would put my proposed solution
into practice, most, if not all, of these unspeakable horrors
would be a thing of the past. As it is, since virtually no
one listens to my proposals, I expect the violence to continue
and to escalate.
Most Bible students
understand that ancient Israel was warned that if they turned away
from serving and worshipping Yahweh, unspeakable horrors would come
upon them (cf. Deuteronomy 27-28). They had previously sworn that
they and their progeny would obey the words of the Covenant (Ex
24:7). Suffice it to say Israel turned away. Israel, up to that
point, was the only nation on the face of the earth that worshipped
Yahweh. They eventually, as a nation, let go of their faith in the
Almighty, and eventually Yahweh was no longer worshipped either in
Israel or anywhere else, at least not on any large national scale.
We should here acknowledge that the nation of Judah did have
some very righteous kings, and there have been righteous individuals
and groups on the scene throughout history, but following the death
of King Josiah, the worship of Yahweh was abandoned by the nations
of both Israel and Judah. Yahweh, having been rejected by
mankind in general, has allowed our ancestors' decision to run its
natural course and, as much as it grieves me to write this, He does
not intervene when crimes of hate are perpetrated on others. Even
the Apostle Paul, during the first century, recognized that Satan is
currently in charge of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4), and Satan is
certainly not going to intervene in the interest of bringing about
peaceful resolutions. Things have not improved since the days of the
Apostle Paul and we don't look for things to get better as this
world continues its chaotic downward-spiraling freefall. From the
Book of Enoch we read that our current generation is "an
apostate generation" (Enoch XCIII, 9), but at the end of this
generation certain elect will be chosen. Will we be among them? We
can only hope and pray that we are. In the meantime, we know that
the world situation will not improve. As bleak as this report is, it
at least answers the commonly-asked question of how a loving Creator
could allow all the suffering to go on. He doesn't want anyone to
suffer, but He offered us the recipe for peace and long life only
for us to spurn it and Him, so He in essence bowed out of our
lives because we didn't want Him there. Those who actually sit down
and absorb what Scripture tells us don't really have to ask why all
this world suffering and hatred is going on. This is a question
that, as soon as I hear it, I know the person asking the question is
not a student of the Word, or at least he or she cannot be
much more than a novice. The answer to the question isn't that
Yahweh has abandoned us; the answer is, we (collectively)
abandoned Yahweh and His ways.
The sad reality is that very
few understand why things like suffering, killing and murdering
continue to escalate, but instead of turning to Scripture for
answers (and a peaceful means of coping), many shake their fists at
their image of who the Creator might be and reject him on the basis
that if he does exist, he must be a cruel, tyrannical
creator. Consequently, we live in an age during which fewer and
fewer individuals acknowledge belief in an intelligent Creator and
of those who do believe in a Creator, few actually take the
time to read His instruction manual. If they would read and study
His instruction manual, they would know that the same Bible that
warned Israel of the devastating repercussions of turning away from
worshipping Yahweh also prophesies that things are only going
to get worse until He Himself, through His Son Yeshua the Messiah,
will finally intervene. You can read much of this prophecy in the
book of Revelation, but many other passages establish this same
somber truth. If my purpose in composing this piece was to prove
what the Bible says, I might throw in some proof texts to validate
what I've just written. However, those who already have a working
knowledge of Scripture don't need the validation and those who
don't read Scripture will just have to start researching!
When I read about the recent
Charlie Hebdo massacre, I became curious about what led to the
events of January 7, 2015. From what I gleaned, the catalyst of the
massacre may well be traced to the events of 1970 when former French
president Charles DeGaulle passed away in his hometown of
Colombey-les-Deux-Églises, France eight days following a disastrous
fire in a local nightclub named Le 5-7. One hundred forty-six people
perished in that fire, but when media attention became more fixed on
the national mourning of their legendary leader instead of the
multiple families who had to bury loved ones and somehow piece their
broken lives back together, a
weekly
magazine named Hara-Kiri published the following headline: «Bal
Tragique à Colombey : 1 Mort», which means "Tragic Dance/Ball in
Colombey: 1 Dead." They in essence satirically trivialized the
tragic deaths of 146 individuals by tweaking the death toll
storyline so as to report the death of one individual, i.e.,
Charles DeGaulle. As a result of this satirical headline, the French
government banned the magazine. However, the publication resurfaced
under the name of Charlie Hebdo ("Weekly Charlie"), and
because of its unabashed political and religious satire, it became
very popular. As time passed, Charlie Hebdo continued its
satirical depictions of various individuals, including Islam's
prophet, Muhammad. One in 2006 had the prophet lamenting, "C'est dur
d'être aimé par des cons," which is translated, "It's hard being
loved by jerks." The President of France, Jacques Chirac,
became concerned and issued the following statement:
"Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in
particular religious convictions, should be avoided."
Former French President
Jacque Chirac understood the need to show respect for the religious
convictions of others, even in the face of disagreement. When I
think of the demeaning political cartoons and the individuals that
the cartoonists poke fun at, often in a very unflattering way, I am
reminded of the fact that those who do these things exhibit a
general lack of caring for the feelings of fellow men. Let's
face it: If I have respect for your feelings and I know you prefer
to not be made fun of or to be the butt of jokes, then I will
not make fun of you. I will go to great lengths to show respect for
your feelings. I'm not saying that we should feel inhibited from
expressing disagreement with the views of others, but there are ways
of respectfully expressing disagreement without being rude,
crass, vulgar or intimidating. Sadly, this is not the attitude of
Charlie Hebdo. Charlie Hebdo doesn't ask, "Do you mind if
we poke fun at you or your religious beliefs?" They just do it, then
when you complain, they answer, "You need to learn how to take a
joke!" Of course they reserve for themselves the right
to define what is "funny," even if it's at the expense of others.
Should we make jokes at the
expense of others' feelings? Should we be disrespectful towards
others? Can we express disagreement without being openly offensive?
I am persuaded that there is one verse in the Bible that answers
these questions, and if everyone would have taken that verse to
heart from the time that it was first published, a great deal of
suffering would have been avoided. Wars would have never been
fought. Precious lives would have been saved. That verse is Romans
12:18:
18If
it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all
men.
Now I realize I could
probably cite better passages, such as the ones where we are told to
love our neighbor as ourselves and even the ones where we are told
to love our enemies. But this one is so eloquently worded, yet
expressed so earnestly, that it strikes me in a special way. As we
mull over the Apostle Paul's suggestion in Romans 12:18, we should
ask ourselves, "Should we make jokes at the expense of others'
feelings? Is that a means of striving to live peaceably with all
men? If a group warns us to not draw unflattering or otherwise
demeaning cartoons of their prophet, but we do so anyway, is that
living peaceably with all men?"
It saddens me to know we
live in a world where the media drums up the "cause du jour," and
anyone who merely speaks against that cause is found guilty of hate.
Take, for example, the cause for the gay lifestyle. Personally, I
believe our Creator knows what's best for His children and after my
own careful investigation, I have found that the One who created us
speaks His will to us through what is known as the "Torah." And in
the Torah our Creator speaks against the gay lifestyle.
Nevertheless, in today's society, if anyone should dare to speak out
against the gay lifestyle, that person is considered to be spewing
hatred. Take, for example, Phil Robertson, the star of a show called
"Duck Dynasty."[1]
We have never seen this program, but I remember
the stores used to be jam-packed with "Duck Dynasty" merchandise.
For some reason, we don't see any such merchandise in the stores
these days, but I digress. During an interview in 2013, Phil
Roberston made disapproving remarks about the gay lifestyle. Citing
an anti-gay verse from the Bible, he expressed his personal view in
agreement with the Biblical position while graciously adding that he
condemns no one. Robertson's remarks set off an anti-Robertson media
firestorm. Huffpost's "Gay Voices" quoted an organization known as
the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). This
alliance could have shrugged off Robertson's disagreement with the
gay lifestyle and stated something to the effect of, "Well, he's
just exercising his right to free speech, which we fully support,
even though we disagree with him." However, no ... that wasn't their
reaction AT ALL!! Here's a quote from the article:
Robertson's anti-gay comments did not sit well with lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender (LGBT) advocates. GLAAD called his comments
some of "the vilest and most extreme" uttered against the LGBT
community, "littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant
misinformation."[2]
The article goes on to suggest,
courtesy of GLAAD, that the network sponsors reconsider their ties
to the "Duck Dynasty" program:
In a
statement obtained by The Huffington Post, GLAAD spokesperson Wilson
Cruz said:
Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but
Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true
Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the
majority of Louisianans –- and Americans -- who support legal
recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's
decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and
his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with
such public disdain for LGBT people and families.[3]
Please bear in mind that
Robertson had only expressed agreement with the Bible while stating
that he does not judge anyone: "Robertson said that he does not
judge anyone, but leaves that up to God saying, 'We just love 'em,
give 'em the good news about Jesus—whether they're homosexuals,
drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm
saying?'"[4]
As we can see, we live in an age
wherein the media defines what constitutes "free speech" and
what does not. In the case of "Duck Dynasty," the cable and
satellite television channel A&E decided to suspend the program
because of Robertson having expressed his religious views--views
that A&E management obviously disagrees with. However, due to a
flood of protests from Robertson supporters, the suspension was
lifted before any shows were affected. Nevertheless, we can see that
the pro-gay media supports censorship when the views expressed,
regardless of how respectfully they are spoken, differ from their
own. Is this their show of support for free speech?
Also keep in mind that Robertson didn't
make any jokes about gays, nor did he draw any unflattering cartoons
of gays. All he did was respectfully express his opinion and the
LGBTQ community immediately cried, "Censor him!"
This same double standard can be found when expressing anti-abortion
views. Never mind what Scripture has to say; according to today's
society (in general), the Bible is outdated and irrelevant;
consequently, anyone who speaks out against abortion while citing
Scripture needs to be censored. They don't deserve a voice,
let alone "free speech"!
As
previously stated, June and I endorse the Bible's plea to strive to
live peaceably with all men. We question whether those who rebuff
the Scriptural mandates against the gay lifestyle and against
abortion give much thought to such verses as Romans 12:18. In view
of their expressed agenda, we highly doubt that the staff at
Charlie Hebdo has ever given a second's thought to the Apostle
Paul's solution as found in Romans 12:18. We even question whether
many of Islamic faith would agree with the Apostle Paul's
suggestion. After all, it isn't as though they haven't been guilty
of drawing their own unflattering cartoons of Jews and even
Americans. Here's one that comes to mind:
I also accessed an Islamic
web site that shows a cartoon drawn by the same cartoonist, which
does a pretty decent job of illustrating the double standard so
widely promulgated by the media:
I recently read a comment by
a reader who summed up the current media double standard: "Free
speech seems to be accepted ONLY when it follows the 'politically
correct' guidelines." Of course, we can expect the pro-gay,
pro-abortion media to define what is "politically correct," and they
currently endorse disparaging cartoons of Muhammad while dubbing
anti-gay comments "vile and extreme."
For its part, Islam in general opposes violence. The Secretary
General of the Lebanese political and paramilitary organization
Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah stated that Islamic terrorist
extremists have insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad more than
those who publish satirical cartoons mocking the religion.
The thing about free speech that many seem to overlook is that it's
not really free. As ironic as it sounds, there is a price to
pay for free speech. It has been rightfully stated that freedom of
speech in a self-governing society demands that citizens act with
moderation, respect, and responsibility and that is the price that
needs to be paid. When the first amendment to the Constitution was
framed, the authors apparently did not consider the future
ramifications of "free speech" -- that it would one day be the cry
of those who champion the right to insult and poke fun at those whom
they choose to demean. They didn't realize that it would be the cry
of those who demand the right to liberally insert curse words into
their writings as "poetic license," nor did they dream that it would
be the cry of those who publish pornography. Freedom of speech was
originally the cry of those who were oppressed by a government that
forbade anyone from criticizing it. Anyone speaking ill of their
dictatorial leaders was subject to arrest and sometimes corporal
punishment, including death. We support the right to criticize our
government and we support the right to criticize anyone whose
views you disagree with; however, if we do it within the scope of
Romans 12:18, it will be done respectfully and with noble intent.
The late editor of Charlie Hebdo, Stéphane Charbonnier, once
stated, "We thought the lines had moved and maybe there would be
more respect for our satirical work, our right to mock. Freedom to
have a good laugh is as important as freedom of speech."
It isn't the freedom to laugh that we speak against and I highly
doubt that Islamic adherents are displeased with a man wanting to
enjoy a hearty laugh. However, when we demand the freedom to
laugh at others' expense, we take advantage of the
freedoms that our forefathers so earnestly fought for. When
our demand for free speech comes at the expense of someone else's
right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," there's a
problem. Let's not take our freedoms for granted and let's not
allow our freedoms to interfere with the freedoms that
others deserve. Let's cherish our freedoms and hold them
dear in a special chamber of our hearts. Our focus should be on
living peaceably with all men and when we consider the
possibility that something we do or say may compromise our
relationship, we should think twice before carrying out such an act.
If we truly want to maintain friendly relationships with others, we
might want to work at applying a creed that one of our friends uses:
"Good friends don’t have to be careful what they say to each other,
but they are careful anyway." I remember a line from the movie
Jurassic Park that I think applies to this situation. When
the scientists announced that they could use ancient DNA to clone
dinosaurs, the protagonist, Ian Malcolm, remarked, "Scientists were
so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they
didn't stop to think if they should." In the same way,
we may feel that we have the freedom to satirically mock others, so
it's not a question of "Can we do it?" but the greater
question is, "Should we do it?" If I understand the
message from the Bible correctly, the answer is a resounding, "NO."
If we are opposed to violence, shouldn’t we also be opposed
to provoking it?
I realize my plea will most
likely be read by only a few individuals and even fewer will take it
to heart. However, maybe one person will understand that we really
shouldn't be "Charlie." Maybe one person will realize that
what we should strive to be is not "Charlie," but representatives of
the Most High Yahweh. One person can make a difference.
Will you be that one person who will proudly say, "I am Romans
12:18. I am a servant of Yahweh!"?
And let
us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: not
giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but
encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day
approaching. -- Hebrews 10:24-25
I am not Charlie; I am a servant of Yahweh.
2024 Update
t has now been over nine years since the horrific
Charlie Hebdo attack, and sadly, just as I feared in 2015,
things have not improved. I had written, "Things
have not improved since the days of the Apostle Paul and we
don't look for things to get better as this world continues its
chaotic downward-spiraling freefall."
In fact, I don't even know where to start with all the
heart-rending acts of violence that have plagued our world since
the Charlie Hebdo Massacre. To the best of my knowledge, back in
2015 we all thought churches were "safe havens" from violence.
Then, in 2017, a gunman walked into a small church in Sutherland
Springs, Texas and murdered 26 worshippers, wounding 22 others.
About half of the victims were children. A year later, a gunman
walked into a Jewish synagogue and murdered 11 worshippers. But
shootings in places of worship, as unimaginable as it was only a
few years ago, pale in comparison to school shootings. As those
of my generation often say, we couldn't even imagine growing up
that school shootings would even be a thing.
It certainly never crossed my mind, and I was definitely a
target of bullying during those bygone years. According to an
online Washington Post article, "More
then 370,000 Students Have Experienced Gun Violence at School
Since Columbine." The Columbine School Massacre that
shocked the nation and the world occurred on April 20, 1999.
Since then, according to the Washington Post article, there have
been 404 school shootings. And counting. It seems that every
day, right here in Texas, I hear reports of either a student
getting caught with a gun at school or, worse yet, an actual
shooting on campus.
Frankly, even with the best
efforts to prevent these attacks, I don't see how it's possible to
prevent anyone angry and hateful enough from perpetrating them.
Instead of blaming mankind's collective decision to turn away from
Torah, or even our society's crumbling family structure, the fingers
are pointed at law enforcement. Is it any wonder that, according to
a March 2024 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin:
A
Police Executive Research Forum survey indicated that
between 2020 and 2021, the law enforcement resignation and
retirement rates increased by 18% and 45%, respectively.
Four of the largest metropolitan police departments are
collectively down over 5,400 officers during 2022 and 2023.
Further, law enforcement is experiencing a drastic decrease
in the number of recruits—27% to 60%, depending on the area.[5]
The Police Executive
Research Forum survey didn't cover the year of the Robb Elementary
School mass shooting of 2022, where
lawsuits continue against the
school, the city of Uvalde, Texas and especially law
enforcement. Our hearts broke when the news of this shooting, 375
miles from here, reached us. I actually prayed for Yahweh to take me
back in time so I could either warn the school of what was coming or
stop the shooter myself. That obviously didn't happen. You can be
assured the school and law enforcement have prayed the same thing—some
way of knowing in advance what was about to happen so they could
intervene and prevent it. Many of us had enough trust in our fellow
man that we didn't feel anyone should be expected to anticipate a
gunman entering our homes or schools, but now that it has happened,
and since we can now anticipate copycat perpetrators, more changes
are being implemented across the USA. Neither the school nor law
enforcement was prepared for a hateful psychopath, so yes, lots of
critical mistakes were made due to lack of preparedness and
confusion. Law enforcement is being blamed and sued. I
obviously wasn't there, and I, along with many others, continue to
grieve over the loss of so many innocent victims, both students and
teachers. Sadly, all fingers are pointing at law enforcement, and
this fact, combined with the already-ongoing negative media
portrayal of police officers in general, leads me to understand why
would-be recruits are deciding to pursue a safer career—a
career free from the triple jeopardy of being responsible for
others' lives, their own lives, and knowing that they will likely be
fired, including making front-page headlines, for any mis-judgment
or mis-assessment of any given situation. But that's where we are;
increasing violent crimes, fewer law enforcement to protect our
citizens, and lawsuits when our dwindling, understaffed law
enforcement fails to protect as expected. No one points a finger at
how all these horrors are the ongoing fulfillment of Deuteronomy
28:15-68. We need to return to the giver of all life, and may He
forgive us and have mercy on us for our transgressions.
You might wonder how all
this ties in to the Charlie Hebdo Massacre. Well, it does and it
doesn't. I think mostly it does. The Charlie Hebdo massacre
would not have occurred if the magazine founder had understood the
need to be respectful towards others. Clearly, the "Je Suis Charlie"
show of support for the victims, though well-intended, was also
a show of support for those who want to ridicule others in the name
of "free speech," instead of stepping back, examining and squelching
the root cause of the violence. Lampooning the Muslims' prophet was
a mistake from which the media should have learned a valuable lesson
and effected a radical, yet tame, change of behavioral approach.
Instead, I continue to read an increasing onslaught of derisive
articles aimed at discrediting opposing sides of any issue, to the
point of labeling those who vote for the "wrong" political party as
"the
basket of deplorables." Moreover, it seems that every
time I read the "Reader Comments" at the end of news articles, most
of the comments tend to be rude, insensitive and sarcastic.
Insensitivity is the hotbed of hatred, and violence is a product of
hatred. Since the Charlie Hebdo Massacre, I sense the ensuing show
of support was to a degree misplaced, as the show of support
stands in favor of continuing ridicule and making crass jokes at
others' expense instead of stepping back and thinking that maybe
everyone should follow former French President Jacques Chirac's
advice:
Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in
particular religious convictions, should be avoided.
It should go without saying that the above should likewise be
the model exhibited within the political arena. But not only that,
we should seek to avoid personal attacks on a person's character.
Blessed are the peacemakers. I can only wonder, if the
Charlie Hebdo magazine staff had followed President Chirac's
counsel, not only would the massacre have been prevented, but maybe,
just maybe, might our world have been spared from lots of
other acts of violence? And how about the
cringe-worthy rhetoric spewing from both sides of the political
arena, which is now more akin to a political battlefield? I've seen
and heard such name-calling as "moron," "birdbrain," "crooked,"
"liar," "shifty" and "deranged" applied to political candidates. And
this comes from what is supposed to be the conservative
party! Like it or not, this now-common and completely insensitive
approach foments hatred, and we all know the end results of hatred.
So here we are in the year 2024. Has anything changed since 2015?
Yes, but as I feared, it's not for the better. I stand by my
2015 closing remark: "I realize my plea will most likely be read by
only a few individuals and even fewer will take it to heart.
However, maybe one person will understand that we really
shouldn't be 'Charlie.' Maybe one person will realize that what
we should strive to be is not "Charlie," but representatives of the
Most High Yahweh, seeking His ways, walking His path of
righteousness. One person can make a difference. Will
you be that one person who will proudly say, 'I am Romans 12:18.
I am a servant of Yahweh!'?"
18If
it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all
men.
The ultimate cure for hatred and its rotten, moldy
fruit is a return to Torah practice; however, as peaceful as that
cure is, the "pill" is apparently too bitter for most of humanity to
swallow. Like never before, we need to return to our Creator with a
humble spirit, praying as Yeshua taught: "Thy Kingdom come."
__________________________________
[1] Duck Dynasty is an
American reality television series that aired on a network called
A&E from 2012 to 2017.
[4]
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, "Phil Robertson," 25
December 2014,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Robertson
[5]
FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
United States Department of Justice, "Playing the Long Game: Law
Enforcement Recruitment," by Timothy Karch, M.S., March 7, 2024.
